Why is Reuters pushing climate panic porn?
(dailysceptic.org)
Comments (12)
sorted by:
I have mixed feelings about this one. The title of the Daily Sceptic article that Reuters fact checked is "Climate Crisis Shock: No Change in Average U.K. Temperatures for More Than Two Decades" (here: https://dailysceptic.org/2023/06/20/climate-crisis-shock-no-change-in-average-u-k-temperatures-for-more-than-two-decades/).
That article shows that the 10 year average UK temperatures are equal to the 10 year average temperatures from a decade ago and concludes "No change in average temperatures" in the title. Now, there isn't anything wrong with that analysis; DS is technically correct in their specific statement about a 10 year averaging window but if they had chosen another window, eg, 5, 15, 20 years or whatever those averages would have shown warming.
My beef with the DS article is that the running average length they chose for their analysis absolutely should have been in the title especially since most other commonly chosen averages would have shown warming. That is, the title of the DS article needed to be "Climate Crisis Shock: No Change in the 10 year Average U.K. Temperatures for More Than Two Decades"
That said, I've got to reiterate that I'm pretty much the opposite of a climate change alarmist. There's a lot to be said about the accuracy of these temperature records in the first place, and in my view that actual threat of increased CO2 / increasing temperature is wildly overblown. However, when we combat these claims it's important to do so with precision, and it's cleat that the title of the DS article left them open to a "misleading" claim from Reuters.
I have absolutely no beef with people lying in an article that supports my world view.
In fact, I think the dissident right needs less scruples and more lying.
The left doesn't bat an eye while they fabricate truths that align with their world view and they're winning the hearts and minds.
World views are an illusion. There is only truth and deception. I'm certainly capable of deception, but the only reason I'd be willing to use that tactic somewhere is because I'm ultimately correct and my "views" are based in reality (truth).
Additionally if one is to use words as weapons, there has to be an efficacy to it. What benefit is there to using easily called out falsehoods? Deception has to be even smarter when we do not have institutional support to gaslight the population. Otherwise we look like Baghdad Bob proclaiming "everything is under control" while American tanks roll in the background.
I get where you're coming from; it's frustrating to watch the media and fact checkers let leftist lies and misleading arguments fester unscathed while they attack any minor infringement (like this article) or even wholly truthful assertions by the right on technicalities.
I just don't think cranking up the lying, however much it may be justified in a tit for tat sense, is a good idea strategically speaking. Because the left holds the institutional power in the west right now they would just love for the right to really start cranking out misinformation. They'd fact check every lie and, more importantly, they'd heavily publicize every lie. And then they'd use that publicity as the basis for more censorship and more intrusive surveillance, which is exactly what they want to do anyway. It would be playing right into their hands.
I have plenty of beef about people lying about life or death stuff like this.
But if no lies at all is not an option, then the next best thing is equal amounts of lying in all directions. At least that keeps the brain-dead drones from all stampeding in the same direction and making a mess. So go ahead dissidents, get to work shepherding your share.
They're still pushing the airport bullshit?!
These cultists have a lot of nerve, I'll give them that...
Money; the same as everyone else.
Could be Fakt, as in we're all Fakt when this happens.
Sorry, reeling from the post about Scotland.